Posted on 06/20/2011 5:22:09 PM PDT by lancer256
The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.
Recently, CNN's Fareed Zakaria spoke admiringly of how "Iceland is actually junking its own constitution and starting anew and ... soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens, with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube."
Zakaria beamed as he ticked off some of the wonderful ideas proposed by Icelanders, such as "guaranteed good health care" and "campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal."
Putting aside the obvious question of how Barack Obama, Russ Feingold and John McCain managed to get on Iceland's social networks, I hope idealistic Americans don't get any ideas from this tiny nation's dubious project.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...
I agree...a Con-Con is a bad idea.
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
not with the sh!t in DC right now.
A constitutional convention would really be a bad idea and it is unnecessary. The Feds and states only need to live up to it as it exists and all the problems go away.
Iceland is going to hear cheering from every corner of their country, and every corner of the world, as the march into slavery that will cost the blood of many to put to a halt.
Ugh. When will this urban myth stop! A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CANNOT RATIFY AMENDMENTS. IT CAN ONLY PROPOSE THEM.
The proposed amendments still must be ratfied by the states in the same manner as amendments proposed by Congress, a process that virtually guarantees a conservative constituency. Even Democrats at the state level are more conservative than at the federal level. Opposition to conventions would assure that only the ruling class in Washington ever proposes amendments. And that ruling class will never do anything that will permanently limit the federal government.
Again, a convention could propose permanently giving the White House to Big Bird. It wouldn’t matter a lick unless the states ratified the amendment.
I think the Commerce Clause is misinterpreted and misused and that this causes a lot of trouble.
I'd like to see a balanced budget mandated.
I'd like to see a property requirement for voting -- if you receive a check from the government for services rendered (ex. military pension) then you can vote. If you receive a check from the government based on need, sorry, no vote for you.
I'd like to see tax withholding made illegal. Once a year, on the first Monday in November, write a big check to Uncle Sam for every bit of tax you owe. Then, the next day, go vote for the politicians of your choice.
Any of these changes would please me.
Probably the only thing that is needed is a further adherence to the Founders’ intents. I have heard that it wasn’t their intent to limit the numbers of congressmen, but had intended the number of congressmen to grow with the population.
It might sound wrong to send even more people to Washington than who currently stand, but try buying the influences of a senator or congressman if he was one of thousands sitting, instead of the approximate 500 that currently sit.
Fist, there are two types of Conventions mentioned in Article 1, Section 5 of the United States Constituion. The first is "a Convention for proposing Amendments." It is exactly what it sounds like. Yes, such a convention could propose an amendment which says, "Scrap the whole thing and replace it with ...." That doesn't mean that it would happen. "A Convention for proposing Amendments" serves only as an alternative to amendments being proposed by resolutions in both Houses of Congress passing by 2/3rds majorities. Those are proposed amendments, they are not ratified amendments.
In the history of the United States (since 1789, under the current Constitution), there has not been a "Convention to Propose Amendments." However, in the 1990's (I think), the Congress actually codified some laws as to how such conventions would be held. Also, when states propose such a convention, they usually do it with specific resolutions whish state precisely which amendment they wish to propose. Indeed, the best way to get Congress together for the required 2/3rds votes on a proposed amendment is to bring them Applications from 2/3rds of the states for a Convention to Propose a specific amendment. Rather than lose control of the process, the proposed amendment generally sails cleanly through the House and Senatate at that point. It's a very good tactic if you wish to advance a constitutional amendment.
The second convention mentioned in Article 1, Section 5 of the United States Constituion is the ratifying convention. This exists as a way for states (one convention in each state) to ratify an amendment. It is an alternative to ratification by the state legislatures. In our history, only one amendment was ratified by state convetions. That was the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). All other amendments have been ratified by state legislatures.
Although many people find the concept of Constitutional Conventions scary, the reality is that they aren't that bad. Actually the situation of 2/3rds of the states requesting a Convention to Propose a specific amendment has been used several times to propose amendments which were eventually passed by the Congress. Congress does this to make the requests moot, and to maintain control of the process.
Precisely!! Akin to indicting a ham sandwich. Convicting said indicted ham sandwich is a different animal of another color(to confuse metaphors).
A “Constitutional Convention” would be the quickest way to destroy America as we know it. IMHO.
Yes, but you are one step closer. Why give them another step?
Either it is business as usual or we actually do what our Founders did... risk all so that we can live in Peace in a Free and prosperous Constitutional Republic... and we lost that Nation... we need to take it back... they are not going to just give it back to us. A CC is a way to help win that battle.
LLS
Nothing good would come of that.
LLS
Yeah, but how do you prevent it from being hijacked and have good intents become ill?
Actually, there was a "Bill of Federalism" site which had 10 (I think) really good proposed amendments. I'll give you my top two. The first is my own idea,
Harpo Speaks wrote:
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
The “You Represent Us” amendment:
- Congress shall make no law establishing compensation or benefits for United States Represenatives or United States Senators.
- Any law of the United States which provides for compensation or benefits for United States Senators and/or United States Representatives, which is in effect at the time this amendment is ratified by the several states shall be null and void after December 31 of the year of ratification.
- Effective January 1 of the year following ratification of this amendment, United States Representatives and United States Senators shall be employees of the State they are elected to represent. They shall receive compensation and benefits as defined by the legislatures of their state. They shall be subject to all laws which apply to elected officials of their state.
This does a few things. First Congress can't vote to raise their own salary. Second, they get a weekly or semimonthly reminder of who feeds their family and who they really work for. In some ways, this partially mitigates the damage done by the 17th amendment. I'm seriously considering setting up a website and a campaign for that amendent.
My other top priority would have to be the Repeal Amendment. Or something like it. This would allow a supermajority of the states to pass resolutions specifically identifying any law, united states code section or code of federal regulations section. If such a law, code section or regulation is specifically identified by 2/3rds (some versions of this have 3/4ths) of the states as being repealed, it is repealed. No futher action required by the Congress.
This also gives some power back to the states, again mitigating some of the damage of the 17th amendment.
It would never happen, but outright repealing the 17th amendment would also be a great idea.
A 1 six year term for the President..
It is needed, but would be insane given the rot that is so prevalent today.
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
An amendment proclaiming that no law passed by Congress or signed by the President (regardless of party, c'mon, Republicans can write as many stupid and unconstitutionally-abrogating-our-freedom laws as Democrats when they put their, I hate to use a four letter word, mind to it) shall be considered legal and binding until or unless every member of Congress and the President can prove he or she has read it, in its entirety, at least once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.